Replies

24:

I'm a little bugged by the PC creep into the story lines.

By the liberal line, you'd think we were actually carting Arabs and Muslims off to work camps.

As if.

All the stuff they fear so greatly is so completely out of scope with reality... we can't even profile (with arguable reason to do so) when we really need to and perhaps should be.

Given the reality of the overwhelming PC-ness of the response to the threat of terrorism, this bidness of supposing that the U.S. is suddenly going to be forming concentration camps or instituting martial law or even the most modest invasions of privacy... none of it is even remotely believable. People that believe in this stuff also believe that the Pentagon wasn't really hit by an airplane and that the WTC was intentionally demolished.

Hell... if a nuclear device actually DID go off somewhere in the U.S. the first story on CNN would be about the "bigger threat" that Bush ~might~ implement martial law in that city and they'd pan immediately to the protest marches demanding fair and equal rights for the bombers.

It's a story line with a basic plausibility problem.

People whine and moan about giving up liberty for security... what? What compromises of liberty have even really happened? Taking off our shoes at the airport? lighters or hair gel? c'mon... ya gotta do better than that. Sure, maybe they're dumb rules and they're a hassle, but a major affront to liberty? Don't think so.

That somebody inside the White House is plotting all this stuff behind the President's back, and that it wouldn't automatically result in his expulsion and arrest... dang... I'm must having a hard time with that story.

Aside from that... Jack is still Jack. :-)